second bill of rights
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: second bill of rights

  1. second bill of rights

    Where would our country be today if we were properly rebuilt? It's mind boggling to see what we've done to our country in the past 75 years. It's almost impossible to believe there was a time when a household only needed 1 income, when the rich actually paid taxes, when banks didn't run the white house and things like social security was put in place for our seniors and the unable. We laugh at things that seem like a "conspiracy", but honestly what can we gauge as being too far fetched anymore?

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    47%+ of the people don't pay income taxes. The "rich" disproportionately pay the majority of income taxes. There is a big misrepresentation of taxes and government spending regularly put out by the left/MSM/Dem's. Everyone needs some "skin" in the game so the foolish won't be so quick to favor more giveaway programs.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  4. If you look SOLELY at "Federal Income Tax", and look solely at "percentage paid by income level", yes, the rich pay the lion's share. If you look at "all income-based taxes at all levels" and compare "individual effective tax rate", the middle class bear the lion's share. (Higher income levels tend to have more of their income come from sources other than payroll, and therefore pay lower taxes on that income.)

    Social Security is a proportionally higher percentage tax on the poor and middle class, as it is a flat tax across income levels, except the rich, for whom it caps.

    Personally, I'm a fan of a graduated flat tax. If you're below the poverty line, your income tax drops to zero (my thought is that AT the poverty line, it's full, dropping to zero at half the poverty line.) Other taxes (social security, medicare,) stay flat. But this tax is on *ALL* income. No lower tax rate for capital gains, etc.

    And to those who say that higher taxes stifle job growth, and drive entrepreneurship away, I say: Look at the late '80s-'90s. We had noticeably higher taxes on the wealthy then, and yet the economy did well. Look at the '50s, when the economy was booming, the highest tax rate reached as high as 92%!!!

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    If you look at "all income-based taxes at all levels" and compare "individual effective tax rate", the middle class bear the lion's share

    Probably not. I'm talking about actual dollars not some left wing idea that percentage should be much higher for the "rich".

    Social Security is a proportionally higher percentage tax on the poor and middle class, as it is a flat tax across income levels, except the rich, for whom it caps.

    Social Security aside from being a Ponzi scheme was not designed as a welfare tax which the left want to turn it into. It was an "insurance" program for disability and a minimal return for retirement. Your return is more or less based on what you put in. It should be privatized and kept if the American people are too stupid to save for their own retirements.

    Other taxes (social security, medicare,) stay flat. But this tax is on *ALL* income. No lower tax rate for capital gains, etc.

    Making income taxes a flat percentage would be fair but the left/MSM/Dem's don't want fair. They want to punish being successful (new success, not old success which they let off the hook). However keeping a flat percentage on SS (I believe Medicare is not capped) while capping their return is dishonest and simply turns it into another welfare tax.

    Look at the late '80s-'90s. We had noticeably higher taxes on the wealthy then, and yet the economy did well.

    In spite of not because of and that success was largely based on dishonesty and vaporware not something good for anyone.

    Look at the '50s, when the economy was booming, the highest tax rate reached as high as 92%!!!


    And tax shelters up the ying-yang. No one paid the 92% but it did allow government to direct what the producers actually did. It was nothing more than giving government a tool to force money where they wanted it, not tax collection.






    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  6. Quote Originally Posted by maybejim View Post
    Probably not. I'm talking about actual dollars not some left wing idea that percentage should be much higher for the "rich".

    Social Security aside from being a Ponzi scheme was not designed as a welfare tax which the left want to turn it into. It was an "insurance" program for disability and a minimal return for retirement. Your return is more or less based on what you put in. It should be privatized and kept if the American people are too stupid to save for their own retirements.


    Making income taxes a flat percentage would be fair but the left/MSM/Dem's don't want fair. They want to punish being successful (new success, not old success which they let off the hook). However keeping a flat percentage on SS (I believe Medicare is not capped) while capping their return is dishonest and simply turns it into another welfare tax.

    In spite of not because of and that success was largely based on dishonesty and vaporware not something good for anyone[COLOR=#FF0000].
    I'm saying that the percentage should be at least equal. Funny how many people advocate a flat tax talking about how it is more fair to the wealthy, yet don't seem to realize that would mean higher taxes on the rich, based on current payment trends. The top 1% hold over 47% of the wealth, yet only pay a little over 30% of the taxes. (Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power )

    You are correct, SS has become ridiculous. It is supposed to be what its original name implied "Supplemental Security Income", the only problem is that corporations took it to mean they didn't have to pay for their workers' retirements any more. Pensions are essentially extinct, and there are plenty of companies that don't pay "family wage" jobs that include enough income to go toward retirement, too. (I'm lucky, I'm certainly nowhere near the 'rich' mark (and below the average income mark for a two-income family, but above that for a one-income,) but I make enough - and we are careful enough with our money - that our family of three can live on my one income, while still putting some away for retirement.) SSI should become more like "insurance". Everyone pays in; people draw out if needed. It should be temporary by nature, only pays when truly needed. Yes, if someone gets totally puckered, they may need it for the rest of their life; but it should *NOT* be counted on as primary income by *ANYONE*. (I know I certainly am not counting on getting it.)

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    The top 1% hold over 47% of the wealth, yet only pay a little over 30% of the taxes.

    So what? Do you want to punish them for saving and investing? Sounds like a great socialist/communist program. No one (except goverment hacks of course) is allowed to have any more than anyone else.

    the only problem is that corporations took it to mean they didn't have to pay for their workers' retirements any more

    Not true and the change in defined pensions was replaced with 501K's for the most part, with most companies offering matching for the first 3-10% of your salary that is invested. SS was around for decades before the pension change took place.

    there are plenty of companies that don't pay "family wage" jobs that include enough income to go toward retirement, too

    Certainly not for sweeping floors. If you don't make enough where you are, get more education, change companies, or start your own business. But beware, with your own business you get exactly what you earn (after Uncle Sam steals what he wants), no more, no less.

    SSI should become more like "insurance". Everyone pays in; people draw out if needed.

    SSI is that way and is for disability. To make SS the same way, is to turn it into a forced welfare tax and another license for government to steal. Do you really want 15% plus of your earnings going to a welfare program.

    but it should *NOT* be counted on as primary income by *ANYONE*. (I know I certainly am not counting on getting it.)

    SS is counted on as primary income only by the very ignorant/foolish. But if it is going to continue it needs be privatized so that you get back what you put in plus earnings (interest, dividends). Then if you die before collecting your family gets your money.


    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,647
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Hurtley View Post
    I'm saying that the percentage should be at least equal. Funny how many people advocate a flat tax talking about how it is more fair to the wealthy, yet don't seem to realize that would mean higher taxes on the rich, based on current payment trends. The top 1% hold over 47% of the wealth, yet only pay a little over 30% of the taxes. (Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power )

    You are correct, SS has become ridiculous. It is supposed to be what its original name implied "Supplemental Security Income", the only problem is that corporations took it to mean they didn't have to pay for their workers' retirements any more. Pensions are essentially extinct, and there are plenty of companies that don't pay "family wage" jobs that include enough income to go toward retirement, too. (I'm lucky, I'm certainly nowhere near the 'rich' mark (and below the average income mark for a two-income family, but above that for a one-income,) but I make enough - and we are careful enough with our money - that our family of three can live on my one income, while still putting some away for retirement.) SSI should become more like "insurance". Everyone pays in; people draw out if needed. It should be temporary by nature, only pays when truly needed. Yes, if someone gets totally puckered, they may need it for the rest of their life; but it should *NOT* be counted on as primary income by *ANYONE*. (I know I certainly am not counting on getting it.)
    Top 1% pay 38% of the taxes. Top 5% pay 59% of taxes. Top 10% pay 70%. Top 50% pay 97.3% of taxes. 47% of people pay no taxes.

    And yes, I'm one of the "puckered". My intention was to retire from my job, take my retirement, and find other work. Degenerative Disc Disease changed that 4 years before retirement. The state system conciders me unemployable due to medications. The Feds do too as there are days when you don't even get out of bed and it never gets better than it currently is. And after age 50, most jobs won't hire someone with this condition. So yes, I'm one that the SSI is designed for but could still survive on my disability retirement. I had about 120 credits when the minimum is 40 for collecting.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by maybejim View Post
    The top 1% hold over 47% of the wealth, yet only pay a little over 30% of the taxes.

    So what? Do you want to punish them for saving and investing? Sounds like a great socialist/communist program. No one (except goverment hacks of course) is allowed to have any more than anyone else
    How is asking that the top 1% pay taxes in a percentage equal to what they make punishment? Wouldn't it be punishment to the middle class and poor to make them pay a higher percentage than their income?

    47% pay no Federal Income Taxes. They *DO* pay other taxes. Hell, I'm nowhere *NEAR* poor, yet I pay no federal income taxes most years. I still pay Social Security, Medicare, a minute amount of capital gains (although that has been zero the past few years,) state income tax, and state property tax.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    How is asking that the top 1% pay taxes in a percentage equal to what they make punishment?

    I was replying to the whine that they own a lot of wealth. Attacking/whining about someone accruing wealth is nonsense.

    They *DO* pay other taxes

    Big deal. The "rich" pay a lot more of those other taxes as well. SS and Medicare are insurance programs (until the left and the jealous turn it into nothing more than a welfare program). Most states, if you pay no Federal income tax, you pay no state income tax and property tax is/was to cover costs like fire/police etc. protection for your property. Of course the "rich" pay more property tax and state income tax as well.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  11. I think too many people put themselves in the rich column like our friend above me here. I highly doubt your that top 400 I was referring too :/

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast